Human cannot tell difference between weights of two pebbles, which is lighter Lighter means easier to lift, heavier means tougher to lift But he can certainly tell which is heavier amongst a pebble and a boulder.. Human did realize that throwing a heavier rock was more tough as well. Heaviness is being pulled down :: From experiments with his fellow humans, he would have learnt that pulling something brings the object closer and pushing sends object farther, also that two opposing pulls and pushes kind of decrease each others effect and also that whoever pulls or pushes more strongly, directs the object. Human cant snatch object from someone stronger than him, that is if his pull is weaker he wont win Now he would pull a boulder up yet it wouldnt come out, so someone must be pulling the boulder down. Likewise, things until pushed or pulled would stay where they are, therefore things when released go down so someone must be pulling them down. Complication arose because there is no visible or physical rope attached to pull down.. No smooth pulley apparatus was available whatever was had good amounts of friction So lifting an object via rope would require a little more effort that it otherwise would, but once lifted it required lesser effort to hold it up. Metrestick and sandclock are taken to be invented. Conservation of heaviness :: A pebble always seemed almost as heavy as the last time, it didnt suddenly become as heavy as a boulder or light as a feather, so heaviness is nearly the same everytime Sources of constant force ::
A fixed amount of water or any object serves as source of constant vertical
pull, but this would not be transmissible via rope and pulley as friction would interfere. Also experiments in vertical direction would be affected by gravity and 9.8m/secsq is too fast for human eyes, So let us say human stumbles across a spring, or a glue or elastic leaf or rubber, when pulled by nearly the same amount, it pulls nearly as much. Let it be fixed on ground and stretched vertically. Now since it would pull down any fellow human by nearly same amount (everyone would, irrespective of the fact that their strengths and muscles are different, agree that pulling the rubber(s) by certain fixed amount is tougher for them than lifting one big rock and easier than lifting three big rocks.. this is interesting as well as important.. if human finds lifting one big rock difficult, he cannot find lifting two big rocks easier than lifting that one rock.. infact any increment in heaviness wont make the task easier) Now, let the rubber assembly be fixed to ground and as before but attached to a crowbar held at fulcrum and balanced on the other end.. Now two such assemblies at twice the distance from fulcrum are needed to balance the bar, where as only one would suffice if it were at same distance, therefore for crowbar, the product of distance and multiplicity of rubber assemblies would stay the same, rubber assembly equivalents for each objects heaviness and each elastics strength would be tabulated. Two identical springs would pull twice as much (pulls are additive) :: The rocks are pulling as much as they always did, lifting rocks of RAE 1,4,7 would require any combination of N springs whose RAE would add upto the RAE of rocks. How does this prove additivity.. well.. How much is the pull is measured by RAE, Say we lift 3 rocks of RAE r1, r2 & r3 let us say the total pull required to lift them is given by a function F3(r1,r2,r3) experimenting and tabulating the data shows F3 = r1+r2+r3.. Similarly lifting 4 rocks, requires F4(r1,r2,r3,r4) here also it turns out that F4 = r1+r2+r3+r4 Similarly for all verifiable N, the total RAE required FN(r1,r2rN) = r1+r2+ +rN So for all verifiable N, the pulls r1,r2 rN were infact additive as total pull was always and only the sum of individual pulls. Therefore in general the pulls/pushes (forces) are additive.